'Appointments To Uniformed Services Require Greater Caution' : Supreme Court Restores Dismissal Of Medically Unfit UP Constable

The Supreme Court on Monday (April 20) held that a candidate who is medically unfit for a public post like police cannot retain appointment merely due to administrative lapses or parity with similarly placed individuals, reiterating that eligibility criteria goes to the root of public employment

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N. V. Anjaria set aside the Allahabad High Court's ruling, which had upheld the appointment of a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police despite his medical unfitness at the time of recruitment, an aspect overlooked by senior police officials.

Background

The respondent was appointed as a Police Constable in 2005. However, following a large-scale review of recruitment irregularities, a Medical Board in 2007 declared him unfit due to a “knock knee” condition, an established disqualification for the post. His services were terminated the same year.

Subsequently, amid ongoing litigation involving recruitment processes, the respondent secured provisional reinstatement in 2013, claiming parity with another candidate who had been reinstated despite medical unfitness of colour blindness.

The State later initiated disciplinary proceedings, culminating in his termination in 2017, which was upheld by departmental authorities. However, the State Public Services Tribunal in 2021 set aside the termination, and the Allahabad High Court affirmed that decision in 2023.

Setting aside the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah held that medical fitness is a foundational requirement for appointment to a uniformed service such as the police, therefore, neither it is impermissible for the Respondent to claim a right over such public post, neither he can claim parity with other similarly placed candidates, stating that there is not concept of negative equality under the law.

The Court criticised the manner in which the Services Tribunal and the High Court allowed the reinstatement of the respondent, ignoring his medical condition which rendered him unfit from the very beginning.

“The Division Bench has rather simplistically granted its approval to the Order passed by the Services Tribunal in a routine manner, without considering the intricacies and larger implications of doing so. Any appointment to any public post and more so, in uniformed services has to be examined with a greater sense of responsibility. The scrutiny expected from the High Court as also the Services Tribunal is of a much higher level. Looked at from any angle, it is apparent that the Respondent was medically unfit due to knock knee. The matter ends there… Lack of eligibility goes to the root of the matter and appointment, wrongly made, cannot be sustained once the factum of ineligibility, on the relevant date, comes to light.”, the court observed.

The Court found that the Respondent had suppressed the vital information about its medical unfitness.

“Unfortunately for the Respondent, we are of the opinion that such act is nothing short of deliberate suppression for the reason that the Respondent was aware that such disclosure, per se, would disentitle him from even being considered for the post of Police Constable. Despite this, the Respondent represented himself as being entitled to the said post. This would be an act in the realm of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.”, the court observed

Conduct of Police superiors slammed

The Court expressed concern over the manner in which the Superintendent of Police handled the reinstatement of the candidate without verifying his eligibility, stating that such conduct undermines the integrity of recruitment processes.

“The Superintendent of Police, Jalaun District has also not acted in the manner a senior officer is, expected, nay obliged to do. The said officer was duty-bound to verify all aspects of eligibility before acceding to the request of the Respondent. This appears to have been totally overlooked by him. It speaks volumes about the manner in which senior officers conduct themselves in the discharge of official duties, especially as regards recruitments to public posts. Lack of sensitivity, responsibility and caution causes immense damage not only to the credibility of the system, as a whole, but militates against public interest, where otherwise eligible persons get ousted by persons who are not eligible.”, the court said.

.Warning To State Authorities

While upholding the termination, the Court also acknowledged that the State authorities themselves had failed to exercise proper vigilance at the time of reinstatement.

The bench advised the State to streamline its recruitment processes and cautioned that failure to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements could invite stricter judicial action in future.

“There is no doubt that the Appellants also grossly failed in performing due diligence and ought to have been more vigilant before reinstating the Respondent. But that cannot come to the Respondent's aid, in the overall background as has been sketched out hereinabove. The Appellants are well-advised to act now to set their house firmly in order, failing which, in futuro, coercive orders will follow from this Court.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, restoring the termination of the Respondent.

Balancing equities, the Court directed that salary already paid to the employee for the period he had worked should not be recovered. It also ordered payment of any outstanding dues for actual service within four weeks, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply.

Cause Title: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. VERSUS. AJAY KUMAR MALIK

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Ms. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Mr. Sharanya, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Akshit Pradhan, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Malviya, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Verma, Adv.